16-05-2021, 05:26 PM
@farmerjohn wrote:
As the report explains: four samples were taken. One sample was processed twice with different pre-treatments, in order to select the appropriate pre-treatment. It was necessary to select the more intensive pre-treatment, so that version was selected for all four samples.
On the general discussion, whenever dates are presented as: 490 ± 37 BP, this means that these are uncalibrated dates. These are not quite the "concreate years" that @bi3mw was looking for.
@Anton already answered his own question.
The report does not really explain everything, it just gives some of the reasoning and of course the results. Many more details can be found here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Quote:4 out of 5 (for whatever reason)
As the report explains: four samples were taken. One sample was processed twice with different pre-treatments, in order to select the appropriate pre-treatment. It was necessary to select the more intensive pre-treatment, so that version was selected for all four samples.
On the general discussion, whenever dates are presented as: 490 ± 37 BP, this means that these are uncalibrated dates. These are not quite the "concreate years" that @bi3mw was looking for.
@Anton already answered his own question.
The report does not really explain everything, it just gives some of the reasoning and of course the results. Many more details can be found here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)